Markus Collins <markus at fastcat.ml.org> wrote:
>Fortunately, there are enough scientists who spend their
>lives on figuring out how things work (be it in medicine,
>physics, chemistry...).
Like sense-censored physics folks so fortunately maybe working on
cancer causing artificial frequencies and atomic bombs and such nice
stuff.
>> Well, I would have thought to sort of do some stuff some people might
>> consider evil and pay some mothers whose babies died so one can cut
>> up their heads and examine enough of that and ask the mothers before
>> about food conditions would be rather scientific.
>>Well, "scientific" yes. But certainly not "ethical". (I'm glad
>we both agree here.)
I am not sure we do.
I am not for cutting around in dead folks unless they assented to
that, but if the choice is between some alive mammal or some dead
mammal, than of course rather in some dead mammal.
>However, there are two ways to be a little bit more "ethical":
>(of course, you might still find them un-ethical, but
>we do have to draw the line somewhere)
A friend had fish were you could wriggle your fingers and they'd go
into fighting position and some'd swim against the glass.
Could repeat it over the next days and months; same reaction.
Not knowing the limits there the whole time, not learning and not
being able to discern a human finger from one of the own kind,
was making them definitley below the line, sort of food consisting of
a bunch of programs steering it, swimming around.